The chart shows the most recent month's unemployment rates organized by
state, along with historic highs and lows for each state (plus the District of
Columbia) since 1976. The figures tell a story very much at odds with
conventional wisdom and reporting done over the past decade regarding the Bush
administration, but otherwise closely tracks that of other administrations.

I reviewed the chart and found the following:

The historic low unemployment rates (since 1976) for twenty of the fifty states
were recorded during the years of George W. Bush’s administration. Seven
of those were at the very beginning of his term (in January through March of
2001). Thirteen of them, however, were in Bush’s second term when his policies
had certainly had plenty of time to take hold and he had solid reason to claim
credit.

On the flip side of the economic picture, the chart showed that eleven
states (including the District of Columbia) have experienced their record high unemployment rate (since 1976) over
the past few months – several months after passage of Barack Obama’s so-called
stimulus bill.The most recent month’s
unemployment figures for an additional five states are within one percentage
point of the record high since 1976.In
other words, sixteen states are now experiencing at or near record high
unemployment.

In my home state of North Carolina, the highest unemployment
rate since 1976 was experienced in May of this year, at 11.1 percent.The most recent month cited on the chart (September
2009) showed NC with a 10.8 percent unemployment rate, a difference of only
3/10ths
of a percent.

California experienced its historic high unemployment mark
since 1976 in August of this year with 12.3 percent unemployment.Last month the number had only improved to
12.2 percent.Delaware’s worst
unemployment since 1976 was seen in June at 8.4 percent.By September, the number had only improved to
8.3 percent. The District of Columbia
experienced its historic high of 11.4 in September of this year, as did Florida
(with 11.0), Nevada (with 13.3) and Rhode Island (with 13.0).

For eight years of George Bush’s administration conventional
wisdom, encouraged and reinforced by the reporting done by the mainstream
media, was that we were in the midst of one of the worst economies in the
history of the world.When the
unemployment rates were several points lower than they are today, Nancy Pelosi
was asking, “Where are the jobs, Mr. President.”Yet the figures from the Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics show some of the states’ best employment rates since
1976 were recorded during George Bush’s second term, with thirteen states
experiencing them in years after Bush’s policies were instituted.

A look at the list shows thirty-two states’ high
unemployment marks occurred during Ronald Reagan’s term in office – with almost
all of those concentrated in late 1982 through early 1983.In his second term several states experienced
record low unemployment.Twenty states
experienced their record low unemployment rates since 1976 during Bill
Clinton’s administration.A look at
Reagan’s approval ratings during the first half of his first term, compared to
later years of his administration, and certainly a look at Bill Clinton’s
approval ratings during his time in office reflects those numbers.

Unemployment rates are only one little piece of the economic
picture, but they are a powerful one when it comes to public perception and
approval.During the Bush administration
those in the media, as well as Bush’s political opponents, were very successful
in downplaying the good jobs numbers and shaping public perception.

Recently there have been similar efforts to shape public
opinion, but this time in favor of Barack Obama, by minimizing the results of
the stimulus plan.Since this is very
early in his term and the economic situation could improve significantly over
the next few years, Obama may not need such help.But if the economy does not improve soon, not
even a fawning media and Democratic Congress will be able to move public
opinion enough to stop the steep drop he is seeing in his approval numbers.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

When it comes to the economy, those in government would be
wise to follow a tenet of physicians -- first do no harm.

During the 1996 presidential campaign I asked a friend why
he planned to vote for Bill Clinton.He
said he liked what Clinton had done for the economy.I reminded him that when Clinton took office
the economy had already been in recovery for over half a year.I asked him what Clinton had done regarding
the economy that he liked so much.He
thought about it a bit and then said, “Well, he didn’t really do anything.He just didn’t mess things up.”

I did not agree with
him about the specifics, but what he said did make a lot of sense and helped me
to understand why the President was so popular at the time.It didn’t matter whether or not the state of
the economy was the result of anything Bill Clinton had done, or if it was in
spite of things he had done, the perception was that Clinton deserved credit
for the strength of the economy.When
things are going well, people are not likely to want to change course. After all, he hadn’t done anything to terribly
“mess things up.”

That is how conservatives often think of the economy – it
works better the less those in government try to “manage” it.There are fewer opportunities to mess things up
that way.

When Barack Obama took office the economy was suffering. He moved quickly to pass a $787 billion
supposed “stimulus” bill.The stated
intention was to jump start the economy with lots of spending on public
projects to prevent the unemployment rate from reaching 9 percent.Many of those projects were more about
congressional pork than employment though, and many of the jobs “created” are
temporary.

As columnist Cassy
Fiano noted, “since the stimulus package's passing, we've lost an average
of 16,000 jobs a day, and the unemployment rate has shot up to 9.8%, a
26-year-high. The budget deficit has quadrupled, and our public debt is
currently around $11 trillion.”

We are also seeing the breakdown costs for the jobs
“created” through the stimulus plan.Recent government figures show a
cost of $71,500 per job just based on the funds distributed so far.Other calculations show the cost per job even
higher.Even when basing the success of
the stimulus plan on the administration’s own expectations, it comes up far
short.It is hard to imagine any measure
by which it could be considered anything but a miserable failure.

Since his election, we have seen month after month of job
losses and some are discussing the possibility of a second “stimulus”
plan.Just because the first plan has
(so far anyway) made the unemployment situation much worse, don’t assume
politicians would be reluctant to make matters even worse yet.There are too many examples of politicians
doing just that in the past.

It is not unusual for politicians to enact failed policies,
then when it becomes evident they are failing, instead of changing course, to throw
more money into the same failed policy.Remember the War on Poverty?How
about the failed approach to education for so many years?Instead of coming up with new and innovative
solutions to falling test scores and other problems in schools, the preferred
policy for many years was to throw more money at the same policies that failed
in the first place.

President Obama and Congress would do well to consider what
the current stimulus plan has done thus far and opt to do no further harm to
the economy.If I thought this
administration and congress could come up with a plan that contained actual
stimulus, especially in the form of tax cuts, that would be one thing.So far though, I have seen nothing to lead me
to believe they are capable of such, and as long as they continue to maintain
that what we are seeing now is success beyond Joe
Biden’s wildest dreams, I am afraid of what much more of this “success”
would look like.

As noted earlier, when Bill Clinton took office the economy
was well into a recovery.In spite of
that fact, what was sold to voters as the “worst economy in 50 years” during
the campaign, became the “Clinton recovery” virtually overnight.Clinton declared it the case and those in
the media put their stamp of approval on the claim and convinced the country
that it was so.

The Obama administration appears intent on trying to spin
the stimulus plan as a success.So far
they are having trouble convincing even the Obama-friendly media, much less the
public at large.When people are out of
work, or fearing they may soon be, they tend to pay much closer attention to
the cause and effect of the state of the economy than they do when things are
coming up roses.If they are paying
close attention now, they are probably not going to be thrilled to hear talk of
Stimulus, the Sequel. Conservative or
not, people are realizing sometimes things don’t turn out so well when the
government “messes” with the economy.

Friday, October 16, 2009

If there is anyone still scratching their head trying to
understand why so many Americans are fed up with their government and are even
marching on Washington, they should consider for a minute where the average
American sees their government putting its time and resources.There are serious concerns about government
overstepping and out-of-control spending, to be sure, but many of the problems
people have with the government today are simply a matter of priorities.

The big legislation making news right now is that on the
issue of health care.Most of those, on
the right and the left, can agree that improvements can stand to be made to the
health care system in America.There are
serious issues over affordability of health insurance and treatment for many
Americans.Unfortunately opposing sides
can’t seem to agree on the best solution.

Beyond the merits of any particular type of action on health
care, though, is whether this issue is the one of highest priority today.Americans are seeing the highest unemployment
rates they have seen in decades.They
are hearing pleas from our military in Afghanistan for more troops lest we risk
losing the war there.They are seeing
madmen around the world with nukes making noise on the world stage.Many people would rate those as higher
priorities right now than the issue of health care.

Health care is at least a serious issue though.It is one that hits Americans not only in
their pocketbooks, but affects their quality of life.The same cannot be said for some of the other
issues consuming the White House lately.

A couple of weeks ago the big news was the all out effort
the President made to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago. In mid-September the President held an event
on the White House lawn to rally support for the Chicago games, and then he and
the First Lady even flew to Copenhagen to make personal pitches in front of the
International Olympics Committee.That
effort was unsuccessful, but at least it was limited in time and
resources.A new effort the White House
has undertaken could last his entire term in office.

The White House communications director Anita Dunn’s
declaration of war on Fox News could last for years and take up much more time
and energy than the quick trip to Copenhagen.Dunn said that “Fox News often operates as either the research arm or
the communications arm of the Republican party.” Dunn said the White House was
going to treat Fox News “the way we would treat an opponent.”When I look at the way the White House has
treated some of the country’s enemies lately I am not sure whether that is a
good or a bad thing.

The amount of time and attention the war against Fox News is
receiving is not limited to the communications director.Dunn said when the President goes on Fox he
realizes it is “not a news organization at this point, he is going on to debate
the opposition.”But when the President
recently blitzed the Sunday morning shows, he pointedly skipped Fox.

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, talked to Bill
O’Reilly about the snub.Wallace said
“there's kind of childishness or pettiness about it,” and “they are the biggest
bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

The President has personally made comments about not only
the Fox News Channel, but about individual Fox personalities like Sean Hannity.
When people see the President’s attention directed at a feud with a cable news
channel, and even individual political commentators, it is no wonder so many
people are asking if the President’s priorities are in order.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Although some say the U.S. economy has “turned
a corner” and Joe Biden says
of the stimulus, “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this
well,” the unemployment rate has reached a 26-year high and many Americans are
suffering.We have not lost the 500
million jobs a month that Nancy Pelosi wildly estimated if the stimulus had
not passed, but the numbers are abysmal.

If the economy has turned a corner and is on its way to
recovery, those looking for a job might not know it. Neil King wrote in the Wall
Street Journal that “Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday that
his own hunch was that the economy would turn around over coming months, but
that unemployment would ‘penetrate the 10% barrier and stay there for a while before
we start down.’”

The most recent reports show the unemployment rate at 9.8
percent.That number doesn’t tell the
whole story though.There are many
unemployed Americans not included in that figure.Worse still, even if the economy is in
recovery, it may be well
into 2010 before the effects are felt in the job market.

If that is in fact what happens, the ranks of the unemployed
next year may just be joined by some current members of Congress.The latest
Gallup poll shows Americans are not happy with the job the Congress is
doing.The current approval rating is at
21 percent, down from 31 percent last month.

Those in Congress surely know it too.In
late 2003, when economic growth surged “at the fastest pace in nearly two
decades” with the gross domestic product (GDP) growing at a 7.2 percent rate,
those in Congress hoping to convince voters that George Bush’s policies were
failing pointed to the unemployment numbers. To draw attention away from the
incredible growth numbers, Democrats pointed to the job market which lagged
behind other economic indicators.

In August 2003, reacting to a July unemployment rate of 6.2
percent, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi asked “Where
are the jobs, Mr. President.”With
the current unemployment rate at 9.8 percent and many predicting it will go
higher over the coming months, House Speaker Pelosi should be asking that
question even more emphatically than she did six years ago.But since her party controls the White House
and both chambers of Congress, I don’t think she will be calling the public’s
attention to the dreadful employment situation.

Not calling attention to the problem is not going to make it
go away in the minds of voters.In fact,
a lack of adequate attention to the jobs problem is what could cost many in
Congress their seats.Voters who are
unemployed or know someone unemployed are going to wonder about the priority being
put on the employment issue, especially when compared to some of the issues
currently being debated.

As a reader recently put it when explaining one reason the
numbers of those on the left have taken a dive, it is because they are
“concentrating on insurance/medical care when unemployment is soaring.Seven in eight are satisfied with their
medical care/insurance. One in two college graduates do not have a job.Parents of those college graduates who doled
out thousands upon thousands of dollars are not pleased.”

Many more are not
pleased that the Congress has moved so far to the left in general, but the
employment issue in particular is one that tends to move public opinion.If the public sees the liberal agenda of
those in Congress as contributing to the loss of jobs, the electoral effect
will definitely be seen next year.

Of course, how the public reacts in the voting booth to the
unemployment numbers will depend in part on their impression of the
situation.During the Bush years,
unemployment rates several points lower than those we see now prompted scores
of news reports of gloom and doom.With
the current rate of 9.8 percent though, we often see headlines like this recent
one at the New
York Times:“Obama Aides Act to Fix
Safety Net.”If the White House and
Congress can convince voters (through positive media like that) they are
working hard to address the problem, maybe they won’t pay such a high price on
Election Day 2010.

A lot can happen between now and then, but there is one
thing of which I am fairly certain -- Nancy Pelosi is not going to be able to
blame the employment rate next year on George Bush.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The way the news media report issues relating to the economy
greatly impacts the way people view the economic well being of the country.That,
in turn, influences their behavior.If
they see the economic situation as strong and sound, they are more likely to
spend money on luxury items, take on additional debt, or even consider risking
a career change.If their impression of
the economy is that it is struggling, or worse, they are less likely to take financial
risk and may decide to save more of their money in case the economic bad news
hits their household next.

For much of George W. Bush’s eight years in office there was
a huge disconnect between what economic indicators showed and what the American
public saw.Some in the media report
the numbers in a straightforward manner, but more often lately they spin them
in accordance with their political biases.

Even when the unemployment numbers were good, many in the
country believed, in spite of what they saw in their own lives and those of
friends and family, that there must be many others out there struggling to find
work.The media spin on even very good
jobs reports during that time was frequently negative.When there was not a negative aspect to a
specific report to be found, it could always be said calamity was surely just
waiting around the corner.

In 2005, Mithridate
Ombud called it “yes, but” reporting, citing several examples from the New
York Times.All the good numbers (you
know, the facts) were in the report, but they were tempered with heavy
skepticism and an abundance of “buts” throughout the text.

Often throughout the Bush years, the news story itself would
be positive, but a scary headline was attached to it.Recently the reverse has been true.It is amazing how even some of the most
dreadful economic news can be spruced up with the help of a happy headline
writer.

The blogger Anchoress proposed a rainy
day game using the headlines and first sentences of economic
reporting.She wrote, “Simply pay
attention to headlines and first lines of news stories about the economy (or
the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach your children how to compare
and contrast by studying how first lines can make economic news seem either
positive or negative, for fun economic, polling and presidential impact!”

Those in the news media do not always provide an accurate
picture of the American economy, but the spin politicians put on that news can
be even more skewed.When numbers such
as unemployment figures, retail spending, and gross domestic product are released,
many politicians spin them to best advance the policies they advocate.

With all the ulterior motives and spin, it is often hard to
get a good read on the nation’s true economic situation.So what is the average person who has trouble
deciphering all those numbers to do?How
will they know when we are truly experiencing recovery?

If they look at their communities, they might not get an
accurate picture.Things are pretty bad
all over, but in some areas of the country the recession has hit much harder
than in others.When recovery does come
it will likely be uneven as well, taking place in some states much sooner than
others and to different degrees.

So, if you can’t necessarily believe the media, or the
politicians, or even your own eyes, what can you believe when it comes to
information about the state of the economy?

Actually, you should listen to what the politicians are
saying, and read what the media is reporting and pay attention to what is
happening in the world around you in your community and beyond.But do so with a critical eye and a healthy
dose of skepticism.

When listening to what the politicians have to say, take
into account what they have at stake in the debate.Be aware of where their loyalties lie and
always independently confirm any information they provide.

When reading, watching or listening to news reports, be sure
to continue past the headline and first few sentences.Pay attention to the facts being offered in
the report, and try to ignore the editorial commentary.

Observing firsthand what is taking place in your community,
and with your family and friends, is in many ways the most important indicator
of the state of the economy for you.That
is what is happening where you live and work so it most directly affects
you.Just be aware that things may be
much different in other parts of the country.

Keep those tips in mind the next time you are reading about
“green shoots” and whether or not we have dodged a double-dip recession.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Recent reports of criminal activity in the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now (ACORN) are
serious and should be of interest to every American citizen, their
congressional representatives and the media.The series of undercover videos made in several ACORN offices across the
country by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, while certainly the most sensational
evidence of ACORN wrong doing, are far from the first.

Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Jim Hoft have been
tracking instances of ACORN problems for years, many related to voter
registration fraud.In Florida,
Indiana, Wisconsin and elsewhere tens of thousands of bad voter applications
were submitted by ACORN in the last election – “tying up election officials and
jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been
stolen.”

Other
illegal activity has been perpetrated and prosecuted as well.No matter how many instances of submitting
bogus voter registration forms and other improper or illegal activity have been
shown, the mainstream media have been remarkably uninterested.Not only had the organization continued to
receive millions in public funding, but was eligible to receive billions of
stimulus money.

The undercover video investigation by O’Keefe and Giles
finally forced the Congress to reconsider ACORN funding and even appears to
have prompted some official investigations into the operations of the
group.If not for publicity on the
internet, conservative talk radio and Fox News those in the mainstream media
would likely have continued to ignore wrongdoing by ACORN.In fact, some network television and major
national newspapers did not give the story any coverage until the Senate voted
to cut off funding.ABC News lead anchor
Charles Gibson said he didn’t even know anything about the video investigation
story until well after it had been covered by Fox News and was all over talk
radio and the internet.

Citizens should be troubled that the major news
organizations in the country seemed so determined to ignore the story.They should be particularly concerned because
they have a very real interest in what was going on at ACORN.Millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to the
organization and those taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being
spent.Likewise, those in Congress with
the responsibility of over-seeing those funds should be concerned about the
type of activity that was being funded.

The American taxpayer was let down multiple times.They were let down by their representatives
in Congress who ignored and/or made excuses for the group and they were let
down by most in the news media who ignored or minimized some very serious
problems within the group.I can’t help
but wonder if not for the sensational nature of the undercover video operation
if Congress and the media would ever have adequately addressed ACORN’s
problems.They have ignored them for so
long, I don’t know that anything short of ACORN workers on camera helping to
facilitate a child prostitution operation would have raised an eyebrow from
them.

Another reason citizens should be concerned about the ACORN
operation is that they were on track to help conduct the next U.S. Census.Census numbers, of course, affect the way
congressional districts are drawn.Thankfully
another result of O’Keefe and Giles’ investigation is that the Census Bureau
has severed ties with ACORN.

ACORN has played a large role in past elections and when
campaigning, President Obama, who has a long history with the group, promised
them a
seat at the table if elected. As Michelle Malkin described it, “Obama's
political DNA is encoded with the ACORN agenda.”Considering that strong connection there is
no way to know just how involved ACORN might have been in shaping public policy
over the course of the Obama administration if not for the work done by O’Keefe
and Giles.

Those defending the group, like ACORN chief executive Bertha
Lewis, claim the problems found at various offices across the country are
isolated cases of rogue employees.As
Mary Katharine Ham put it, “I love how Bertha Lewis
thinks it's exculpatory that only a handful of ACORN offices blithely help
pimps and child prostitution.” The
same was the case with the many incidents of voter registration fraud found in
ACORN offices around the country.

Congressman Mark Foley was just one out of hundreds of
congressmen, and one out of millions of Republicans, yet in 2006 the exposure
of his inappropriate sexually suggestive instant messages to pages was offered
as proof that Republicans were steeped in a culture of corruption. Those in the
media heavily covered the story and helped build that culture of corruption
storyline which played a large role in the huge losses experienced by the GOP
in that election. Yet in the case of improper and even illegal activity in
multiple offices of ACORN, they saw no reason to connect the dots and consider
the cumulative nature of the evidence.

Citizens should be very concerned and troubled by what went
on at ACORN, but they should be even more so by the way that activity was
enabled by Congress and the media over a period of years.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Part of the Department of Education’s suggested lesson plan
to go along with President Obama’s speech to school children this week was for
teachers to ask students, “Why is it important that we listen to the President
and other elected officials… Why is what they say important?”

A better question might have been, “Why is it important that
elected officials listen to the people they represent?Why is what the people say important?”

So much of the President’s current problem with his approval
ratings can be traced back to these simple questions.Whether it be the stimulus package, the
bailouts and control over private industries, a growing deficit or the health care debate,
many Americans believe those in power don’t care what they think or what they
have to say.

In an effort to engage the public and try to persuade them to get on board
with health care reform legislation, lawmakers returned to their districts this
summer to hear what their constituents had to say at town hall meetings.In many meetings the public expressed outrage
at legislators.

In response to such a reaction at one meeting in Pennsylvania, Democrat
Senator Arlen Specter told constituents, “I’m encouraging constitutional rights
by coming to Lebanon to talk to my constituents. I could be somewhere else. I
don’t get extra pay. I don’t have any requirement to be here.” Some attendees
of the town hall meeting responded by reminding Specter, “You work
for us!”

Regarding the recent controversy over the President’s speech to school kids,
some of those in the media decided to weigh in on parents who voiced their
concerns about their children being subjected to a political speech in
school.CNN’s Campbell
Brown said, “I want to take a minute to talk about some of the insanity we
have witnessed over the past few days- the ridiculous charge that the President
of the United States addressing American schoolchildren is somehow a dangerous
thing… So now, can we all take a deep breath and admit this whole episode was
just nutty? I mean, don’t we feel a little bit silly right now for even
debating the issue?”

No, I don’t think we need to feel silly at all, because those parents concerned
about their kids are voters and taxpayers.The man making that speech to their children works for them (as some
feisty Pennsylvanians reminded Arlen Specter).I don’t seem to recall those in the media over the past two decades saying
it was insane or nutty or silly to debate claims that Republicans wanted to
starve school children or poison our water or kill black people in New Orleans.Those sound a whole lot nuttier and
ridiculous and insane than what any of the parents I heard said about Obama’s
speech.

Some in the media are concerned at the level of ferocity aimed
at this President. ABC Political
Director, David Chalian said “Even unfounded criticism is finding a home
because there's a resonance on the larger issue for many Americans of too much
government in their lives – auto bailouts, bank bailouts, government-run health
insurance.”

Those in the media were not so concerned about unfounded criticism when it
was of President Bush regarding unfounded claims that he “lied” soldiers into
war to line the pockets of his rich oil buddies.I don’t recall those in the media worrying
about the ferocity of the criticism of Bush and Cheney, or how it affected
their ability to fight two wars and defend the homeland against additional
terrorist attacks.

PBS’s Bill Moyers is even more unhinged than usual over the current state of
affairs.Here are a few excerpts from some
of his most recent commentary:

“…we've posted on our website an essay by the media scholar Henry Giroux. He
describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements
in a ‘culture of cruelty’ increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and
disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any
political figure who believes health care reform is the most vital of safety nets,
especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about
working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive.”

“So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed -- if you listen to
the rabble rousers --by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United
States to kill Sarah Palin's baby.”

“Poor Obama, he came to town
preaching the religion of nice. But every time he bows politely the heart of
the Republicans kick him.No one’s ever
conquered Washington politics by constantly saying ‘pretty please’ to the guys
trying to cut your throat.”

I don’t recall Moyers being so
concerned when those on the left were claiming Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby
was not really hers, but rather her teenage daughter’s child. Or when some
incredibly nasty people on liberal blogs were saying that child should have
been aborted.Did Moyers lament the
“culture of cruelty” on the left then?

Moyers was not crying for George W. Bush when he came to Washington offering
the hand of bipartisanship to the point that he allowed Ted Kennedy to write
his education bill.It didn’t seem to
bother Moyers that Bush was constantly labeled a divider, in spite of the
unreciprocated courtesy he showed others.

This week President Obama is re-launching his push for health care reform
with a major, prime time speech.There
will be polling of the American people done over the next few weeks to gauge
public opinion on the issue.If Obama
listens to what the American people say and adjusts his proposals he may regain
some of the trust and respect of the public that he has evidently lost over the
past eight months.

If he continues to ignore the wishes of the American people and decides
instead to play the role of the victim the media appears determined to cast
him, he is going to continue his downward spiral. Americans are only now
learning just how loud their voices are.They deserve to have those voices heard. If Obama decides to listen to
them it will be one of the best political decisions he’s ever made.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Recent opinion polls show President Obama’s approval
numbers are lower than they have been since his inauguration.Jake
Tapper reports, “President Obama’s job approval ratings have fallen more
steeply than any other newly elected president and the White House is well
aware that drop could impact the president’s ability to advance his agenda.”

The latest Zogby
Interactive poll of likely voters conducted from August
28-31 found 48% disapprove and 42% approve of the job Obama is doing. The most
significant drop is in support among Democrats with 75% approving of Obama's
performance -- a drop of 13 points over the past month.

Public opinion of the job Congress is doing is lower.Gallup’s
most recent poll shows approval numbers for Congress in
the low 30’s. A recent Pew
Research poll showed one of the lowest
favorable ratings for Congress in more than two decades of Pew surveys—if not
the lowest.

Of even more concern for Democrats in Congress, Republicans
are performing better
on the generic
ballot question than they have in quite some time
leading many political observers to predict healthy gains for the GOP in the
2010 mid-term elections.

Timing is everything in politics and timing is
definitely not on the side of President Obama or the Democrats in Congress
right now.ABC News reports the
president will start a new push on health care as early as next week, outlining
specific proposals at the same time Congress is returning from their recess.

This pressure on the President and Democrats in
Congress is being felt most intensely by the moderate so-called “Blue Dog”
Democrats.Reading opinion polls on
issues such as health care and cap and trade, these moderate Democrats are not
necessarily towing the party line and many of their votes are very much in
question.

Tensions are definitely running hot.Last
week,
Rep. Pete Stark, who heads the health subcommittee on the Ways and Means
Committee, referred to party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care
legislation as "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign
donations.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say brain dead, but they're just
looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda
that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told
reporters on a conference call.

Moderate legislators are also being targeted
by groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the National
Federation of Independent Business on the issue of cap and trade.

A
recent poll shows that 35% of Americans favor the climate
change bill, while 40% are opposed to it.Those opposed to the bill feel more strongly about it: 26% strongly
oppose the bill versus 10% who strongly favor it.

Moderate Democrats in Congress going home to their
districts this past month likely got an earful about issues like health care
and cap and trade, especially if they held town hall meetings while there.They can read the polls.They can see and hear the frustration many of
their constituents have over the current direction the country is being taken
by the President and Congressional leaders.

As the President and Congress return to Washington,
all eyes will be on them.I’ll be
watching to see if the President’s renewed approach to health care will be any
less left leaning.I’ll also watch to
see if those Blue Dog Democrats will be threatened and called names like “brain
dead” or be wooed to join their leadership on a bill that the majority of
Americans appear to oppose.

What I am really interested in knowing is whether moderate
Democrats in Congress will embrace the President with the plummeting
personality and public approval rating or if they will distance themselves from
him.

Either way, we should soon know not only the likely
outcome of some of the more liberal legislation that has been proposed, but
also have an idea about how the next election will be fought. “Blue Dog”
Democrats are in the driver’s seat in many ways, and I don’t agree with Pete
Stark’s assessment of their brain power.They are definitely the players to keep an eye on over the next few
weeks.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The United States government is currently a bazillion
dollars in debt and is continuing to engage in bazillons more in deficit
spending each year.The amounts of the
debt and deficit are actually counted in trillions, but it might as well be
bazillions.The amount is so large that
it is impossible for most to comprehend, so a fictitious number representing an
unfathomable amount seems fitting.

The Associated
Press reported this week, “Figures released by the White
House budget office foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from
2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May. Moreover,
the figures show the public debt doubling by 2019
and reaching three-quarters the size of the entire national economy. Obama
economic adviser Christina Romer predicted
unemployment could reach 10 percent this year and begin a slow decline next
year. Still, she said, the average unemployment will be 9.3 in 2009 and 9.8
percent in 2010.”

Reuters
reported, “The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11
trillion, to close to $20 trillion.”Twenty trillion?A
bazillion?They both sound equally
unreal.In an effort to put the current
economic situation into perspective, Mark
Tapscott cited Brian Reidl at the Heritage
Foundation.

· This
year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household,
and borrow $13,392 per household. This spending is not just temporary:
President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and
$8,000 per household higher than it had been under President Bush.

· The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009
represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean
War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.

· The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all
budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every
dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.

· One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert
back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical
before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion
budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest
spending of $774 billion.

· The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new
deficits between 2009 and 2019—nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing.

· The White House underestimates future budget deficits
by trillions of dollars by (1) assuming that discretionary spending will be
frozen to inflation for the next decade, (2) assuming that cap-and-trade revenues
will be available to finance a Make Work Pay credit (the House-passed bill
allocates those revenues elsewhere), (3) assuming health care reform will be
deficit-neutral, and (4) assuming certain tax increases that are unlikely to be
enacted.

Reidl also notes that none of the
estimates mentioned include the cost of proposed health care legislation, or the coming increased costs from Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid.

Not only are the numbers almost impossible to comprehend, but the overall
state of the economy is difficult to grasp. In addition to the problem of
unprecedented spending, a recent report in the Wall Street
Journal points to problems with the value of the dollar.

Neil Shah wrote, “In a new twist to an old refrain among economists, who
have long worried about the effects of growing U.S. debt, they say that the
huge liabilities the U.S. is taking on to dig its way out of crisis could
ultimately undermine faith in the dollar.”Shah quoted Clair Dissaux, managing director of global economics and
strategy for Millennium Global Investments Ltd., a London investment firm
specializing in currencies, “There has been a lot of disappointment with the
way the U.S. credit crisis was handled. The dollar's loss of influence is a
steady and long-term trend.”

Unfortunately it does not appear there is any quick and easy way out of the
current economic abyss, but at the very least we have to stop the runaway
spending.There can come a point when a
personal debt becomes so excessive that there is no possible way to pay it off
in a lifetime without a considerable increase in income .Many of those in power today evidently don’t
find the governments’ ratio of debt to income to be a problem as long as there
are future generations to stick with the tab.

The trillions of dollars of deficit spending projected over
the next decade are difficult to fully comprehend.Just think of the number as bigger than
anything you can imagine and you’ll be getting close though.It isn’t necessary to refer to the numbers in
“bazillions.”There are many other fine fictional
numbers – katrillion, gazillion and the very similar, bajillion – available
as well.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

According to the most recent polls, the President’s
approval numbers are dropping like a rock. Perhaps of even greater concern to
the President are the numbers for the generic congressional ballot showing
Republicans ahead of Democrats for the past eight weeks. November 2010 is an
eternity away in political time, but the numbers today are something that
should be of great concern to Democrats and the President. The numbers are also
evidence that many winners in the 2008 election misread their mandate.

The latest Gallup
poll
shows presidential approval at 51 percent, with 41 percent disapproval. To
understand just how much that number has changed since the President took
office in January, consider that the numbers in the same poll for the January
21-23 period were 68-12 percent. A gap of 56 percent between approval and
disapproval has shrunken to 10 percent.

Americans voted on an agenda of “hope ‘n change” (whatever
that is), but I would argue many voted on the basis of personality and image.
They chose the young, black fist-bumping rock star over the man often
caricatured as a cranky, old white guy. The vote was about change from what
was, rather than a vote in favor of any specific agenda.Since Obama provided few policy details
during the campaign, he made quite a leap to interpret the election results as
a mandate for the liberal agenda he has pursued as president, and now that is
being reflected in opinion polls.

The President has three years to change course before facing the voters
again, but the same cannot be said for the congressional Democrats he depends
on to pass the legislation he wants.

According to the latest Rasmussen
poll, “43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional
candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.”Of even greater significance, independent
voters now favor the GOP 45%-18%.The same poll now even shows women preferring
the GOP over Democrats.

Another Rasmussen
poll shows respondents for the first time in over two years trusting
Republicans more on the issue of health care.

Americans are not thrilled with the change they have gotten.The bailouts and stimulus plan were answered
with protests which, in a matter of months, became the Tea Party movement.But the debate over health care is what has
elicited the most intense public reaction.That is not surprising considering health care is such an incredibly
personal issue.

The President and Democrats have gotten into trouble
with the public because they believed voters gave them the congress in 2006 and
the White House in 2008 because they wanted a more liberal government. If
Democrats won elections by campaigning as liberals, explaining the specifics of
their policy proposals, that might be true.

What is more often the case is that those who win
elections campaign as conservatives or moderates. Unfortunately that does not mean they govern
that way. Obama and the Democrats criticized George Bush for spending and
running up deficits, but within months of taking office added trillions of
dollars of deficit spending.

Just because voters were angry at corporate
executives collecting big bonuses at the same time thousands of people were
losing their jobs, did not mean they wanted the government deciding how much
money those in private enterprise could make.

Just because voters wanted the American car industry
to survive and thrive, did not mean they wanted the government to go into the
car business -- deciding which executives should be hired and fired and
guaranteeing car warranties.

Just because voters wanted change from what have
been increasingly high health care costs, did not mean they wanted a plan that
would give the government so much control over the industry.

Americans did not vote for a far left agenda, even
though they voted for one of the most liberal presidential candidates in the
history of the country. Those who interpreted the 2006 and 2008 elections as
major shifts to the left, or any kind of mandate to govern from the far left,
misjudged the results.